Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Call Them What They Are: Terrorists
It’s impossible to ignore the fear, confusion, and anger that dominate our country. Our own government is committed to maximize its powers, repeatedly sending the message that we are to obey their demands or we will be punished, even put in danger. This statement may sound like hyperbole to some, but after contemplating several situations that have occurred over the last few years, I am not only convinced that we should be worried, but the facts are becoming clearer all the time: We are governed by an elite group of terrorists.
How is terrorism defined? Here is one definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
- The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
- Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.
- The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
We’ve seen Antifa meet the first definition, and they were bailed out by Kamala Harris, and the second and third definitions would define the actions of not only the federal government, but by organizations closely affiliated with it.
The subject of domestic terrorism was most notably highlighted when parents were targeted as potential threats, and AG Merrick Garland took action, by having the FBI issue “tags” marking those parents who attended school board meetings:
An internal email attached to a letter from Jordan to the attorney general references an Oct. 4 memorandum from Garland for the FBI to address ‘investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,’ with the tag.
‘This disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents,’ Jordan wrote. ‘We know from public reporting that the National School Boards Association coordinated with the White House prior to sending a letter dated September 29 to President Biden labeling parents as domestic terrorists and urging the Justice Department to use federal tools — including the Patriot Act — to target parents.’
Clearly the DOJ intended to intimidate parents to prevent them from exercising their free speech rights:
The proof attached to Jordan’s letter, which is an email exchange between FBI personnel, only has evidence the tags will be applied to investigate and assess threats directed against school officials, as other independent fact-checking organizations have noted.
I’m sure that parents were reassured by this statement.
As I list all the activities conducted by various academic, corporate, and government groups that have a veneer of respectability, you can see that underneath these fabrications are the true intentions of our elites. They intend to prophesy disaster and danger, and multiple strategies have been used, and continue to be used, to assure us that without their intervention, we are lost. Here are a few examples, in no particular order:
- Parents are a danger to their children, particularly regarding transgender issues, and children must be protected from them by the schools.
- Trump threatened our country’s security when he colluded with Russia; even though the collusion was disproven, many people still believe it was true.
- People working for and with Trump were demonized and labeled a danger to the country, including Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Carter Paige.
- Social media sites “protected” the people from the dangerous misinformation that medical authorities were distributing, by deleting and deplatforming individuals and organizations.
- People who were not vaccinated for Covid-19 threatened the lives of others through their selfish decisions, according to the media and government.
- The January 6 imprisonments demonstrated the dangers that the protestors presented to our democracy, and the public should take note.
- IRS raids have been conducted to essentially warn people not to challenge the status quo, although letters have been sent instead in the past.
- Our very existence is in danger if we don’t spend billions of dollars on climate mitigations that are useless and misguided.
- People of religion, most recently Catholics, are gearing up for their own terrorist plans against society, according to an FBI memo.
- Formerly highly regarded authorities and educators threatened the social order with their refusals to kowtow to the current narrative, and are canceled/fired/blacklisted as a result.
- Pro-life activists endanger the lives of pro-abortion candidates as they protest abortion; Mark Houck was unfairly charged and arrested for violating the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances), and was acquitted of charges when the jury deadlocked.
- Riots instigated by Black Live Matters and Antifa threatened cities all over the country just two years ago.
- We have all been accused of systemic racism, without exception, and there is no way to redeem ourselves.
- Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former partner, was “reminded” that he had an upcoming prison date, just before he was to testify on his relationship with Biden.
* * * *
As my opening stated, the elites are not interested in making this a better country, or in protecting our rights and freedom. They are focused on maximizing their power to the degree that every citizen will be fearful about exercising their own rights, but instead will stand by and watch these terrorists who are willing to do just about anything to disempower and intimidate us. Our demands to preserve the foundations of our government are simply ignored; the elites are too busy to pay attention to our expectations.
The only factor that makes them different from other terrorist groups is that they haven’t executed anyone.
Yet.
[photo courtesy of unsplash.com]
Published in Politics
This statement may sound like hyperbole to some
My hand is raised. It is hyperbole, and this kind of language does not advance the argument of legitimate concerns over government overreach and bureaucratic abuse. This is the kind of post I often hope does not make it to the Main Feed, because it makes the membership of the site look like fever-swamp kooks. If that’s what we are becoming, then that’s ok and I’ll see myself out.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
The fight is not between race, class, or political party.
It’s between those who believe they have the right to rule, and those who believe they have the right to be free.
So – what, specifically, do you suggest? Should we just go along to get along?
I’m sorry that you feel that way. My concern is that there are many people who are not taking their actions seriously. Do you not agree that their actions are extreme, that they are often ignored and forgiven by the Left? Do you not think they are not only trying to exert power, but are trying to frighten and intimidate the people?
@Heisenberg, I respectfully disagree. I am having trouble imagining how one could engage in hyperbole against the Progressive Agenda. The conduct is so outrageous it makes nearly any characterization fully appropriate.
JDW, do you think I’m too extreme? I think your response is a bit tepid. I think they believe they have the right to rule at the exclusion of others, don’t you? And we believe we have the right to be free, but they don’t.
I think you’re on the money, and if anything underselling their thirst for power and the means they are willing to employ to achieve that end.
Yes, they believe they have the right to rule to the exclusion of others, and they believe we do not have right to be free.
William Wallace, to the Scottish nobles, in Braveheart: “You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.”
The bureaucracy constitutes the only extremist element threatening our society.
Perfect!
I lean towards @heisenberg on this one. Calling those we disagree with threats, evil, crazy, and now “terrorists” used to be primarily a characteristic of the left. The example used in the post of the FBI calling Catholics “terrorists” is not an excuse to do the same thing. If it is wrong (it was) for that memo to be written and approved it doesn’t make it right to do back. Progressives have long demonized and dismissed conservatives as a threat to their worldview. Now “conservatives” are returning the favor more and more often, with equally dismal results. Defining “elites” terrorists is also extremely open ended considering the definition of “elite” seems to be “someone with power I don’t agree with”.
I think you misread my intention, Con. First, I’m not calling them terrorists to get back at them, although that is how they would define my goal. As I already said, my intention is to accurately describe their actions. They are fully committed to actualize their ideology at any cost; we’ve seen that goal in terms of strangling our energy sector, making absurd and expensive commitments to climate change, letting the cartels overrun and essentially control our borders and allowing people to die from fentanyl. They mouth their concerns, but nothing changes. The commitment to EVs doesn’t begin to consider the hardship that will create for many.
I think we have to get away from the mindset that we need to be nice to the Left, and only use their language to define their acts. We need to face the truth and quit making excuses for their “mistakes.”
Quotes from the post:
From Catholic Vote:
Regardless of what The Southern Poverty Law Center, the source of the report that moved unelected FBI employees in Richmond, Portland, and Los Angeles to label Traditional Catholics as a potential source of domestic terrorism there is a deplorable lack of curiosity in the DOJ and the FBI about these attacks.
After over 100 nights of rioting in Portland 90% of those arrested had their charges dismissed. The word from the Soros Multnomah County DA’s office was they needed to concentrate on more serious crimes. Laughable, because they are not spending much time prosecuting the so-called serious crimes.
The perception that some arrests and selected prosecutions are politicized law enforcement actions should come as no surprise.
As a retired law enforcement fellow, I’d appreciate getting your perspective, Doug. Does the label terrorism go too far?
What are the limiting factors that dial back the FBI hunting for “Catholic terrorists” or collating dossiers on parents who get mouthy at school board meetings? Can you name three?
Can you name one?
Name-calling is not the same thing as describing: The question is, are they in fact threats? Evil? Terrorists?
Very good point, Chuck. Thanks.
Is that some kind of threat? If you disagree with all or some of the points of the OP, that is just fine…go ahead and disagree. But please, do not threaten to take your little ball and go home. My impression is that is not the kind of place we are, here at Ricochet.
You know, it used to be U.S. policy to not negotiate with terrorists.
Also, you forgot about indicting political opponents for saying things in opposition to your viewpoint. One should never do such a thing…of course, you wouldn’t be able to do such a dastardly and undemocratic thing…because you would be in jail, having already been tried and convicted by a jury filled with known opponents.
The problem at the Federal level is you have a combination of political appointees and unelected bureaucrats that have sympathetic views on how to steer and set the course of the ship.
When it comes to the actual prosecution of those who use violence to achieve political goals, we begin to get into the elements that define crimes such as arson, assaults, vandalism, looting, and blocking traffic. Charging someone with terrorism strays into the nebulous realm of charging someone with hate crimes.
It would be easier to charge someone with the basic crimes I listed without trying to insert motive into the prosecution of individuals involved in riots. Motive is not necessary for conviction. Don’t give prosecutors and judges rationalizations to avoid prosecuting basic crimes.
Agreed! There used to be a lady here that was working on her (doctorate?) at UCLA or Berkeley or some similar place out there. She was the stereotypical Left Coast collegian. Almost always disagreed but she was thought-provoking and so I miss her. And I also miss a conservative fellow that used to work for Ricochet – he left in a huff – with a fair number of comments to the effect of “good riddance.” Then I think of a certain Arizona lawyer that has voted Dimocrat: He tries my patience and is not nearly so deep as he thinks he is, but still – if he left, Ricochet would be the worse for it.
The duly elected government does have the right to rule. Rejecting the legitimacy of government is anarchism. If you believe that you “have the right to be free” from the rule of our representative government, then I think that you qualify as an anarchist.
Sometimes government does go too far, and both the courts and elections serve as some check on this potential problem. They are not perfect. I am not prepared to give up on our system of government yet.
It is complicated, as we’ve had two close and contested Presidential elections in a row, with some cause for concern about legitimacy. The proper body to decide the issue is Congress, and it did so.
It’s not the bureaucracy, it’s those who control the bureaucracy.
Good points, Doug. I hate the idea of hate crimes (no pun intended). But when we looked at the sheik’s plans to bomb the WTC, hate crime was not involved. And no one disagreed that he was a terrorist. So it raises the question, what needs to happen for a crime to rise to the level of terrorism? To me, these are not just “basic crimes” when we add them together. Remember, AG Garland was willing to enact tagging of parents as terrorists supposedly if they planned actions against school boards. What about those in government who plan actions against ordinary citizens? It is complicated . . .
I agree with this. I think that they are evil, but generally are not terrorists.
There are some terrorists on the Left, like some in so-called Antifa. There are some terrorists on the Right, too, I think. Not very many, though.
I worry that escalating the rhetoric, by calling people terrorists when they are not, may make a bad situation worse. It could lead to escalation, though I doubt that anyone on Ricochet would do so,
I’m also not fond of focusing on the tactic, the use of force or threat, which can be legitimate when done by proper authorities for a good reason. We’ve used fear and terror as a tactic in war, including against civilians, as have many others, from the Chinese to the Russians to the Israelis. Force and threat is necessary to enforce the law, and necessary in international relations.
A few people have mentioned this concern. Maybe it will make things worse, maybe not. And maybe it will wake people up to explore why the term is being used and why it’s appropriate.
Not a threat, in the sense I don’t presume that anyone cares if I’m here at all, or would miss me if I’m gone. I’m just saying if an online community becomes a place whose prevailing point of view is one I don’t subscribe to, don’t wish to be associated with, or just find plain boring, I don’t see the point in sticking around. Wouldn’t you do the same?
So I ask again – what to do? Anything? Nothing?
(Worrying accomplishes doodly squat.)
Words have meanings, and you don’t get to define them yourself and expect others to agree or understand. If you end up having to explain, “well, when I say terrorist, here’s what I mean by that”, then choose a different word. Calling the government a terrorist organization may give a nice emotional release but understand that you are simply venting. It is not being heard by, let alone being persuasive to, anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
I think it’s interesting you believe our elected officials “rule” us.
They serve us inside very narrow constraints they continuously ignore.
I don’t reject the legitimacy of government. I reject the legitimacy of the unelected bureaucratic mess who believe they have the right to rule while violating our fundamental laws and threatening us when called to account.